How reactive/ active do you GM?

[glitchpop]

So my BW game is rolling now and it's going really well. Much thanks to Thor and Glendower for great advice. What I need now is some advice about GMing in the spirit of Burning Wheel.

I'm finding that my "natural" inclination is to keep coming up with situations to put the characters into. I'm sure this is caused by years of experience with "traditional" rpgs. And it's exactly what I was trying to get away from when I posted this thread: http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4855

So I know it's basically comes down to how the group wants to do it but I really want to try and play BW the way it was intended.

My players are using their beliefs to instigate actions and conflicts. Which is awesome! It's getting better with each session.

I'm wondering how much input do you think the GM should have? Should I only be reacting to the characters' actions? Should I have some planned encounters? Is there a middle ground? Is this an issue anyone else has had problems with?

[elmago79]

In my experiences with story games I find that I usually have a lot of spare time as a GM. In my very limited experience with BE I've found that with good Beliefs in the PC sheets, you basically sit back and enjoy the show.

That being said, it's still the duty of the GM to set the pace of the game. So, if you find things are slowing down, and maybe only then, you should present some planed 'encounters', but in BW encounter should mean: a situation in which a character's BITs are challenged.

Anyway, those are my two cents.

[Thor]

Hey man,

Take a look at this thread (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1457). Luke and I talk about the way we run Burning Wheel. It's not the only way, but it's the way we do it.

I also think this thread (http://nerdnyc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13356) might help.

[luke]

Check out those threads.
But in short, the role of the GM in Burning Wheel is a very active one. There's little presession planning-- the GM emphatically does NOT come up with the story before play. However during the session, the GM must actively and aggressively present situations/characters/problems that trigger the characters' Beliefs. Those situations must be appropriate to the direction of the game and must have mechanical resolution attached to them.

-L

[glitchpop]

That thread is awesome! Lots of detailed example to wrap my head around. Thanks again Thor and Luke.

[glitchpop]

Do you tend to write Bangs to address repercussions from the characters' actions as well as those that trigger Beliefs?

[Thor]

absolutely. Generally, if the players are playing their beliefs hard, the repercussions should play on their beliefs anyway. But it's ok to introduce stuff that doesn't.

Sometimes a player will decide that he cares about those repercussions enough to rewrite a belief.

[Daztur]

I haven't gotten a chance to GM BW yet but in other games my most successful adventures were ones in which I felt like a kid building a beautiful sand castle and then invite over other kids to kick it to bits. Planned up a bunch of NPCs with different relations with each other and the PCs tore through them and killed most of the people I thought they would ally with, helped the evil witch cover up a murder and married the daughter of one of the people I thought would be their enemies. Great fun :)

[EarthenForge]

Hey man,

Take a look at this thread (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1457). Luke and I talk about the way we run Burning Wheel. It's not the only way, but it's the way we do it.

I also think this thread (http://nerdnyc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13356) might help.

Wow - that thread was incredibly helpful. Thanks for digging it up! I'm really getting psyched to GM BW - it jives perfectly with my natural inclinations. I'm thrilled that I'll no longer have to feel like a slacker DM for not having everything mapped out in detail (can ya blame me for wanting to stay in small villages and towns?). Heh, a few sessions ago a couple of my players suddenly decided they wanted their characters to buy horses. They were surprised when they asked what the horses were named and I replied, "I dunno - you tell me." Gah - am I really expected to have that much planned out?

(As an aside, that interesting-as-watching-grass-grow shopping trip lead to a very funny spontaneous event. Xenomouse's impulsive barbarian PC got bored and wanted to impress the lady paladin horse-trainer NPC. He had no riding skills but jumped on a green horse anyway. "What's the big deal - it's not like I'll die if I fall off." I sort of rushed the encounter because I just wanted to be done with the horse-buying stuff, so I go, "Uh, yeah, but you could break your neck. If I roll a 20, the horse throws you and you break your neck" Guess what happened? :D It took about 5 minutes for everyone to regain composure and set about to helping their unlucky friend.)

[Irda Ranger]

Hey man,

Take a look at this thread (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1457). Luke and I talk about the way we run Burning Wheel. It's not the only way, but it's the way we do it.

I also think this thread (http://nerdnyc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13356) might help.

Wow, those two threads (and this one) are great. There was one thing I wasn't clear on though: could someone elaborate on how bangs are related to "Skill checks"? I saw that mentioned a couple times in the NerdNYC thread.

Thanks!

[John Anderson]

Wow, those two threads (and this one) are great. There was one thing I wasn't clear on though: could someone elaborate on how bangs are related to "Skill checks"? I saw that mentioned a couple times in the NerdNYC thread.

Thanks!

Hi,
In terms of how bangs relate to skill checks, as far as I was aware, bangs are events introduced by the GM which directly challenge a belief of one or more of the player characters (the 'ok, this is what you believe...but what about now!?' moment of play), and which cannot be simply ignored. You as GM are introducing a decision point into the game which will have consequences for that player character dependent on their response to that challenge to their belief.

This challenge to a character's belief, by its very nature, should lead to conflict, either between pc and npc, pc and pc, or an internal conflict within that pc as to the actions which must be taken in response to such an unavoidable challenge. Whether such a conflict takes the form of a DOW, Fight! or R&C (which all utilise skill checks) the focus is on the conflict which results and the consequences which unfold (and thus further move the story along) rather than the individual skill checks.

Not sure if that helps or simply creates more confusion...

John